Hours before the Jan. 6 committee is set to refer former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with its subpoena, Meadows’ lawyer George Terwilliger III hit back at the panel in a letter arguing that “such a referral would be contrary to law.”
That “protect the Trump supporters” detail is really eye opening…and it makes it clear that they knew exactly what was going on and it wasn’t antifa attacking the Capitol. If they really thought it was, the NG would have been called out immediately to put the whole thing down…they delayed to allow the Trump minions time to attack the Capitol and take out Congress. It’s a damning statement, and it’s surely not the only thing like that in the evidence the committee has gathered…when they put out their reports and start holding public hearings it’s going to be huge news.
And, this is why Meadows and company are fighting so hard to avoid being forced to testify, if they are on record with what happened then it’s going to destroy them, possibly send them to prison, and take out Trump and the Republican party. Though, I’m not as convinced about the last point, Americans are really great at ignoring reality, especially now that there is an entire propaganda machine for conservatives to listen to instead of the truth. There’s nothing to be done about that except for Congress to produce their reports, put on a clear show about what happened, and then let the DoJ have all the evidence to start prosecutions.
Terwilliger has a big name as a lawyer, but he’s really in the same league as Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis and John Eastman.
He is bleating about a “legal theory” that any first-year law student making shitty grades would recognize as utterly without merit.
He just doesn’t sound quite as squirrel-poop nutty.
Meadows is pretty clearly attempting to ride out the clock until next January [ETA: January '23, that is]. Terwilliger does not need to have winning arguments on executive privilege to achieve that goal, just somewhat plausible arguments. And honestly, executive privilege is such an ill-defined and nebulous legal concept that it’s not all that difficult to advance somewhat plausible arguments.
I think that I understand executive privilege, but can Meadows claim executive privilege if Trump hasn’t claimed executive privilege? Then there’s the exemption for crimining, so like when the FBI seized the documents from Michael Cohn’s (yes I spelled correctly this time), the court appointed a special master to go through his documents and electronic devises. Who can a court appoint to go through Meadow’s documents to see what falls under executive privilege and what is published in his book?
And I view the rallies and speeches given in DC on J5 & J6 as political is there some sort Political Operative’s Act that confers executive privilege to Meadows since this was a campaign event?